• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate History General Discussion

Small question, just what exactly makes it so that British colonization "good"? I mean, a hell of a lot of fiction I read, and the one that was just posted a while ago makes it seem as if being occupied by the people from that rainy little land would leave good institutions and all that. What makes that so?

Bias and historical ignorance.

But, tbh, this seems like a big 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
 
Bias and historical ignorance.

But, tbh, this seems like a big 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
Oh, sorry if I made that sound bad. I just really find it odd and kind of weird that the fiction I read about a country getting colonized by the British is successful no matter the circumstances it finds itself in. Hell, I read one about them colonizing a bit of South America and its GDP Per Capita was around the 40K mark. I think it was like, New Wales or something.
 
Oh, sorry if I made that sound bad. I just really find it odd and kind of weird that the fiction I read about a country getting colonized by the British is successful no matter the circumstances it finds itself in. Hell, I read one about them colonizing a bit of South America and its GDP Per Capita was around the 40K mark.

Oh, it's complete nonsense.

Even if you think GDP is a useful indicator, Malawi, South Sudan and Gambia are about as low as you can get on that scale. My gut instinct is that Somaliland isn't too high, either, though it's hard to find figures. There are obviously ex british colonies doing very well for themselves, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, New Zealand etc but there's complicating factors beyond just latin rule =bad, english rule = good. Malawi exists as much as Singapore does. For that matter Macau and Equatorial Guinea, which is a success by GDP standards if nothing else, exist as much as Niger does.

Like I said fiction that plays into the idea that British colonization left countries in a stronger position than other empires is something that can be attributed primarily to bias and historical ignorance, in particular a misunderstanding of the difference between the white dominions and somewhere like Gambia in terms of treatment.

It's just well 'what exactly makes it so that British colonization "good"' is phrased in a way that made it seem like the audience on here would agree with that statement, when we really don't.
 
The other complicating factor is, of course settler colonisation.

Like Namibia has a high gdp, but massive inequality because it's white settlers who hold most the economic power. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, but Australian aborigines are poorer now then they were before colonisation.

It's entirely possible to write a story wherein both the colonised country is doing very well and the pre colonised peoples aren't.
 
Oh, I'm sure that's inevitable for any language/nation that either had or wanted an empire & great power status. Which is lots of 'em.

There's apparently a thriving russian language ah community, which I've always found fascinating. Lot of focus on the mongols apparently.
 
There's apparently a thriving russian language ah community, which I've always found fascinating. Lot of focus on the mongols apparently.
Unfortunately most of it is nationalist propaganda and its most famous writers are now being military commanders or ministers in the Russian separatist republics in Ukraine.

And given how they often wrote tons of FH books about Ukraine and its “orange nazis” invading Russia with the aide of THE ANGLO-AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS and then being defeated by a lone squadron of brave Russian soldiers,it’s a little ironic that Russia invaded Ukraine and did the things they accused Ukraine of planning to do in the future.
 
For an AH that does overhype the British Empire [I speak of course of Gabb's Churchill Memorandum] it reminded me of a British version of populist-libertarianism.

Past nostalgia is of course part of the style of populist-libertarianism. In the American context, it manifests itself frequently in what can be described as, for lack of a better term, "THE FRONTIER!" So naturally, that in a British context would be "THE EMPIRE!" instead.
 
Its nice but its also a change of pace. And only applicable in some ways

I'd be interested in elaboration on that thought, and which ways it isn't applicable.

But I don't want to come across as overly defensive on this. I'd be interested in your answer because I find the historiography of the British Empire and how we talk about that interesting not because I'm demanding you explain yourself for besmirching our honour or anything like that.
 
I'd be interested in elaboration on that thought, and which ways it isn't applicable.

But I don't want to come across as overly defensive on this. I'd be interested in your answer because I find the historiography of the British Empire and how we talk about that interesting not because I'm demanding you explain yourself for besmirching our honour or anything like that.
I just think there compared to the Zoo this place is much better on the "60 Million dead in manmade famines is a small price to pay for India's railways" SLP is worlds and away better.

I think when it comes to wars of Decolonization things get a bit iffier and by the time you get to "Thatcher actively sabotaged even the idea of negotiations in the Falklands War" some people dive head first into denial and flag waving.

Not that it's Unique to the British and the Empire on this site. But it is out there.
 
Think it's worth pointing out the only reason the notion of negotiation was seriously floated at a high level to begin with was because of the influence of pro-dictatorship people in Washington like Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Without them negotiation would have just been a UN talking point. Their concerns were of course totes non-imperialistic in seeking to maintain US dictatorship-backed influence in South America, and worrying that if the Argentine junta lost the war and fell it would have a domino effect.

Thankfully the US public took the right view and so eventually did Reagan.
 
Last edited:
Failure to maintain a civil environment for posting.
Thanks guys for proving my point.
 
Back
Top